Hi John,
When Seth posted his rework on brcmsmac transmit, we had a number of
patches ready in the same area albeit less rigorous. With Seth's patches
lined up in wireless-next for 3.8, I am wondering what to do here.
Should I send our patches against the wireless tree? These patches will
definitely result in conflicts when merging to wireless-next, which you
typically do. Actually, we do not want these patches in wireless-next as
rework from Seth makes them irrelevant.
Any advice on this?
Gr. AvS
On 11/26/2012 04:54 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:32:19PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
>> When Seth posted his rework on brcmsmac transmit, we had a number of
>> patches ready in the same area albeit less rigorous. With Seth's patches
>> lined up in wireless-next for 3.8, I am wondering what to do here.
>> Should I send our patches against the wireless tree? These patches will
>> definitely result in conflicts when merging to wireless-next, which you
>> typically do. Actually, we do not want these patches in wireless-next as
>> rework from Seth makes them irrelevant.
>>
>> Any advice on this?
>
> If they are fixes, then they should be small and obvious -- hopefully
> that makes the merging relatively easy? You might try applying
> them to a local wireless tree and pulling that into a local copy of
> wireless-next, then resolving the conflicts locally so that you can
> give me some idea of any tricky merges?
>
> John
>
Hi John,
I did already (re)submit the one 3.7 patch to you fixing a slab
corruption. As the code is reworked pretty significantly (removing
packets queues) in 3.8, I have a similar patch for 3.8 that I intend to
submit soon. So merge of the 3.7 patch can be ignored for wireless-next.
Gr. AvS
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:32:19PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> When Seth posted his rework on brcmsmac transmit, we had a number of
> patches ready in the same area albeit less rigorous. With Seth's patches
> lined up in wireless-next for 3.8, I am wondering what to do here.
> Should I send our patches against the wireless tree? These patches will
> definitely result in conflicts when merging to wireless-next, which you
> typically do. Actually, we do not want these patches in wireless-next as
> rework from Seth makes them irrelevant.
>
> Any advice on this?
If they are fixes, then they should be small and obvious -- hopefully
that makes the merging relatively easy? You might try applying
them to a local wireless tree and pulling that into a local copy of
wireless-next, then resolving the conflicts locally so that you can
give me some idea of any tricky merges?
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.